I am man

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: I am man

#826

Post by Epectitus » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:27 am

You know, JSG, if you learned how to use the quoting function and how to read just a tiny bit of the BB code, your posts would be easier to respond to. Just sayin'.
Just some guy wrote:ok great, point out some time in history when killing someone was a ok
All of human history, generally up until The Enlightenment. But perhaps the most obvious example would be in ancient Rome. The ancient concept of patria potestas granted the father of the Roman family the right to “dispose” of the life of his children and his slaves for any reason and any way in which he chose. Just as he had given them life, so he could take it away. While this example is specific, it was actually a very comment social belief across the ancient world.
Just some guy wrote:besides the wars, which is different then you beating your neighbor to death because you did not like him, the lynching, etc was illegal
First (and ignoring that yo have no legitimate basis for leaving aside the wars), I have to point out that you have decided to toss out a red herring; wither or not the killings were "legal." This actually constitutes a comprehensive concession of the necessity of government and government regulation. "Legality" is dependent upon a functioning state that can create and enforce "law." Legality depends on law as a human invention.

But red herring aside, you are factually wrong that lynching was always illegal. The creation of anti-lynching laws was a gradual process that did not take place without active opposition. Starting in 1909, federal legislators introduced more than 200 bills in Congress to make lynching a Federal crime, but they failed to pass, chiefly because of Southern legislators' opposition. As a result, for most of the history of the United States, lynching was rarely prosecuted, as the same people who would have had to prosecute and sit on juries were generally on the side of the action or related to the perpetrators in the small communities where many lived. In the South, blacks generally were not able to serve on juries, as they could not vote, having been disfranchised by discriminatory voter registration and electoral rules passed by majority-white legislatures in the late 19th century, who also imposed Jim Crow laws. Opponents of legislation often said lynchings prevented murder and rape. They were essentially making the same claim to a "natural right" for self defense that you are making.

Perhaps the "legality" argument is not your strongest. It certainly offers no support for any concept of "natural rights."
Just some guy wrote:oh that (The Holocaust) was legal? that was cool to do? or was there war trials afterwards for those who did it?
It was completely legal within the territory controlled by the 3rd Reich. It was in fact a objective of German law.

Again... by citing the war crimes trials that came afterward, you are putting an even finer point on the reality that all rights are invented and applied by humans, that there is nothing "natural" about them. And different human communities, even today, have different ideas regarding what is a "right" and what is not; a circumstance completely inexplicable were such rights actually "natural."
Just some guy wrote:what you mean is that according to our research, we do not think there is a reason. researchers just proved that theory wrong with the chimps, given enough time i'm sure the same will be said for the others. But thanks for offering incite on a topic you are clueless about
You are being inchoate. Research just proved what "theory wrong with the chimps"? As far as I can tell, no one has ever originally theorized that chimps kill for no reason, but in point of fact, research has progressively gone the other way with chimps; our conception of them in the wild has changed from chimps as peaceful fruit eaters to violent predators that also engage in intra-specific warfare and slaughter.

Please... be explicit. What is your actual assertion here?
Just some guy wrote:I missed the chapter viruses from the book "natural law for humans", I will have to re read it.
You missed the chapter because there is no such book. If there was "natural law for humans" as distinct from natural law in general, you make my point for me. If we must adapt natural law for humans, it is not natural then. Is it?

Human law (and human rights) are our own invention, rather than anything derivable from nature.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15350
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: I am man

#827

Post by Suranis » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:39 am

Plus, they have proven that Chimp on chimp warfare is pretty inefficient but telling. They basically go 6 on one for half an hour to kill one another, despite the fact that the sole chimp exercises its right to self defence quite actively.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6734
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: I am man

#828

Post by RoadScholar » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:40 am

It sounds like a comic exaggeration, but not that long ago in the West the explanation that "the fellow just needed killin'" was at least a viable defense against the charge of murder, and almost guaranteed to work if the dead guy was non-white.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 9033
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: I am man

#829

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:56 am

Where do honor killings fall in the book of natural human rights?



User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 8439
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: I am man

#830

Post by Chilidog » Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:03 pm

Epectitus wrote: You are being inchoate.
:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:



User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: I am man

#831

Post by Epectitus » Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:24 pm

Just some guy wrote:1. he said all rights come from humans, so if I am the only human it seems by his definition, I need other humans to confer the right to defend myself.
A complete logical non sequitur. It breaks down on so many levels it is breathtaking.

If you are the only human, the species is already by functionally extinct by definition. So there is no more utility in considering your "rights" than it is in considering your love life. As the only human you would hypothetically (I do not know your personal circumstances) still have sex organs that give you a capacity to procreate (just as your voicebox gives you the capacity to speak, and your legs give you the capacity to travel). What possible utility would there be though in asserting a "right" to procreate? With whom? With your fist? With your friend the bear?

Absent a community there can be no rights, no morality, no law. All those concepts gain meaning only in the context of two or more individuals whose prerogatives and abilities require some sort of mediation. If you are the only human, the concept of "rights" becomes so meaningless that you can confer any right on yourself you choose, even rights for which you have no capacity. You can grant yourself the right to fly, the right to breath underwater and right to photosynthesize. Knock yourself out.

But it is just silly that you would imagine you need a community consensus for anything when there is no community.
Just some guy wrote:2. ability is right, the only way you have a right is to claim a right.
Ability is not right. I have the ability to kill you just because I do not like you. Under your model that "ability is right", that would also be a "right."

Worse, the obverse application of your model is a rationale for tyranny, something that I would have thought you were otherwise trying to argue against. If ability is right, is lack of ability therefore a lack of right? If I duct tape your mouth closed, guess what? You no longer have the ability to speak. Therefore (again, by your own model) you have no right to speak.

Think harder.
Just some guy wrote:What you are saying is that alone, I have the ability to walk, but i'm stuck in one spot waiting for more humans because I do not have the RIGHT to walk. makes about as much sense as you trying to sound intelligent.
Nope. No one has said that. You are not stuck in any one spot... though there are places you physically cannot go. Nature itself puts limits on your ability to do anything. Walk, speak, travel, possess. In this way we see that ability and "rights" actually have nothing automatic to do with each other. "Rights" only become meaningful when they conflict and thereby pose a moral or ethical dilemma. And there are no moral or ethical dilemmas in nature.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: I am man

#832

Post by Epectitus » Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:29 pm

Just some guy wrote:Ok, so claiming a right is not have you acquire a right.
Not unless you can enforce your possession of that right, no.
Just some guy wrote:You wait for your master to grant it to you then correct?
Normally, no. We acquire them by coercive force thus becoming the "master."
Just some guy wrote:Because flow of power wise, only the master can grant something to his subjects, subjects can not grant the master something he does not already have.
Close. Only those with the coercive power to enforce rights actually have them. This is why we create governments.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: I am man

#833

Post by Piffle » Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:40 pm

Today's WaPo is carrying an article describing what is termed 'the nasty effect' to explain, at least in part, the behavior of Trump supporters.
Donald Trump supporters and the mainstream media have a well-practiced routine that goes like this: The media report that the Republican presidential front-runner said or did something untrue/offensive/dangerous, and then supporters reject the reports as dishonest/exaggerated/insignificant.

:snippity:

Here's a theory: Trump backers feel personally offended by coverage that suggests they must be stupid to support him. Insulted, they refuse to accept information presented by media outlets that disrespect them.

Think about it: When someone calls you an idiot, then tells you what to do (or not do), do you listen? Even if the instructions are sound, your wounded brain is inclined to tune them out and go the opposite direction.
[There's much more but, you know, the four-paragraph rule and all.]

The WaPo article's conclusions are hardly surprising; nevertheless, they made me think of threads such as this one where a poorly educated birther/sovrun/pick-yer-poisoner has committed to "go the opposite direction" from almost anything said by those who have offended him/her. Frankly, I'd rather watch the grass grow than participate in sophistry with a sophomore. It is, after all, spring.



User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: I am man

#834

Post by Epectitus » Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:02 pm

Just some guy wrote:And what "soil" belongs to the united states and what "soil" belongs to the states themselves? Unless you, like them, are going to say the united states is all the land.
Unless you are equivocating (as you appear to be preparing to do), all soil within the recognized boundaries of the United States is US soil in terms of the operation of national sovereignty. As Mr. Chief Justice Marshall opined in the Schooner Exchange v. McFadden:

"The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction."


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: I am man

#835

Post by Epectitus » Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:07 pm

Just some guy wrote:If I go live alone in the woods for 30 years, have I lost the right to defend myself? the right to speak?
Whether or not you have lost rights has nothing to do with whether or not you live alone in the woods. Ted Kaczynski comes immediately to mind. His choice to live isolated and off the grid neither granted him new rights, denied him old rights, or immunized him from the coercive power of the state to compel compliance with the law.
Just some guy wrote:What if I lived alone, never saw another human? would I not have the right to defend myself? or should I ask the bear if he is hungry first?
You would in that instance have exactly no more and no less "right" to defend yourself as the bear has a "right" to eat you. Knock yourself out.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: I am man

#836

Post by Epectitus » Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:09 pm

Just some guy wrote:lets just say, I was to agree with your ability is not a right theory.

me and you alone in the woods, how would you stop me from exercising my ability and thus right to speak?
Duct tape.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: I am man

#837

Post by Epectitus » Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:12 pm

Just some guy wrote:lets go at it a different way, who gave us the right to speak?
No one, just as no one gave you the ability to speak.
Just some guy wrote:What document, treaty, king, society first handed this right out?
None.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11173
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Here
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: I am man

#838

Post by Whatever4 » Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:32 pm

I :lovestruck: Eppie. I'm enjoying this discussion.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6518
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: I am man

#839

Post by Northland10 » Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:47 pm

Whatever4 wrote:I :lovestruck: Eppie. I'm enjoying this discussion.
I enjoy reading all the responses here and Eppie's are wonderful. It's nice to see NBC back to comment here.

I cannot really refer to it as a discussion because I am not really reading anything from JSG anymore. I find his claims to be a slave because he has to follow a few laws to be impudent and offensive.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 8439
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: I am man

#840

Post by Chilidog » Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:56 pm

Just some guy wrote:What document, treaty, king, society first handed this right out?

OK, this reminded me of this bit

King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up
Dennis the Peasant: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Peasant!
Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway!



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15350
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: I am man

#841

Post by Suranis » Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:57 pm

Piffle wrote: Frankly, I'd rather watch the grass grow than participate in sophistry with a sophomore. It is, after all, spring.
Just a point of information, the term for people who practice sophistry is Sophist. The term comes from a class of debaters in Athens who liked to convince people with flowery speeches and who came into conflict with Socrates, who preferred the technique of constantly asking questions of someone termed an expert till they inevitably contradicted themselves and "proved" that they were not as clever as they portrayed themselves.

Of course I have no idea what a Sophomore is, so I probably didn't get your joke at all :D


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: I am man

#842

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Apr 24, 2016 6:54 pm

Epectitus wrote:
Just some guy wrote:So if alone all my life, at 18 years old, I am attacked by a bear, I have to wait for other humans to arrive before I can defend myself?
You will probably need those other people, because one on one you have little chance. As I said before, humans are remarkably capable as a community, and essentially helpless as individuals. The bear will likely eat you anyway.

:snippity:

You appear no better prepared to defend yourself from me than you are that bear.
Epi,

In light of your comments, I thought that I would provide Can O' Man with some information that might help him. Several years ago, my teenaged (12 or 13) niece was going on an overnight trip to the UP as part of a week at a church camp on the lake where we have a cottage. She also happens to be very afraid of bears, which we do have in both the northern lower peninsula and the UP of Michigan.

You said, "humans are remarkably capable as a community, and essentially helpless as individuals". While true, I would point out that an individual (out in the woods alone with a bear) is still part of the human community and, if properly prepared, can use that to their advantage.

In my niece's case, she has an uncle who thinks that information is power and doesn't want her to get eaten by a bear or live in fear due to ignorance. With internet access.

Less than a minute's searching led to the information that, if you see a bear in the woods then you should detour around it. If the bear has seen you, then you should go upwind so that the bear can track you by your scent, if it hasn't seen you, then you should go downwind so that it doesn't catch your scent. If the bear attacks, you should curl up into a fetal position to protect your vital organs. People have survived being mauled by a bear using this tactic.

One could also take advantage of the rest of humanity by procuring a firearm (that was loaded for bear)---I'll let you try to explain to Can O' Man the myriad of ways that his capacity to bear arms depends on society. Not to mention how someone exercising their right to arm bears might ruin his whole day.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15350
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: I am man

#843

Post by Suranis » Sun Apr 24, 2016 7:05 pm

On a gaming forum i read someone posted theit play of a PC survival game called the long dark. Very interesting in this context.
Day 1 I wake up in the Trappers cabin find a hunting rifle mounted to the wall complete with shells. I spend a week trapping rabbits and collecting wood, just barely scraping by. I manage to snare a few rabbits, but find their meat goes rancid very quickly. A handful of meat decays while I sleep. On Day 3 I figure out how to load the rifle and I give it a good clean with a kit I found under a shelf. Maybe I can shoot an Elk. Damn they are fast, I need to figure out how not to alert them.

Day 8 I head down to my snare to see if I have caught anymore rabbits but I seem to have attracted a larger angrier foe. The bear snorts and growls, I stand my ground and lift my rifle. I blast a nice shot smack into his sternum but he stands up on his hinds beats his chest before charging me. I get one more shot into him but he's now on top of me, he rips me up bad I'm pinned and unable to fight back. I play dead, I nearly am, he gets bored and wanders off. Bleeding heavily now and badly wounded I lay out some wood, pour on some fire accelerant and light a fire, everything is blurry. With my last ounce of strength I bandage up, eat some cooked rabbit meat and take a drink before I pass out for a few hours. I wake up untouched by the bear who was five metres from me, very groggy and sore. Relieved when I see the bears hulking body lifeless beside me. I carve out some bear meat and make a bee-line for the cabin.

Day 14 I camped up in the ravine after hunting an Elk and downing him with a headshot, I cut up 9kgs of fresh meat, what a haul! I rest up inside a nook for a couple of hours after cooking some meat. Then as night is approaching I immediately head back for the hydro dam to cook up the rest of my prize and catch some z's. When I arrive at the dam I soon realise in all the excitement I forgot to pack my bedroll, nooo. Panic sets in, night has fallen now but I need to go back as I'm literally exhausted. I light up a flare and wander back to the spot where I left my prize possession. After a four hour search of the ravine, in pitch dark, I stumble back to the Hydro dam hypothermic and passing out with exhaustion I lie down for a bit, conscience is fading my thoughts focus on the fact that I have used my last match...


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5384
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: I am man

#844

Post by magdalen77 » Sun Apr 24, 2016 7:23 pm

Suranis wrote:
Piffle wrote: Frankly, I'd rather watch the grass grow than participate in sophistry with a sophomore. It is, after all, spring.
Just a point of information, the term for people who practice sophistry is Sophist. The term comes from a class of debaters in Athens who liked to convince people with flowery speeches and who came into conflict with Socrates, who preferred the technique of constantly asking questions of someone termed an expert till they inevitably contradicted themselves and "proved" that they were not as clever as they portrayed themselves.

Of course I have no idea what a Sophomore is, so I probably didn't get your joke at all :D
My niece will be a sophomore next year.



User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3079
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Occupation: Senior Scheduling Manager
Chemtrails Program
Human Factors and Behavioral Sciences Division

Re: I am man

#845

Post by Dallasite » Sun Apr 24, 2016 10:21 pm

Damn! Epi is stomping Just Some Moron's bullshit into the dirt!

GO, EPI, GO!!!!!!!


"I drank what?!?!" - Soctates, 399 BC

chancery
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: I am man

#846

Post by chancery » Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:32 am

Suranis wrote:
Piffle wrote: Frankly, I'd rather watch the grass grow than participate in sophistry with a sophomore. It is, after all, spring.
Just a point of information, the term for people who practice sophistry is Sophist. The term comes from a class of debaters in Athens who liked to convince people with flowery speeches and who came into conflict with Socrates, who preferred the technique of constantly asking questions of someone termed an expert till they inevitably contradicted themselves and "proved" that they were not as clever as they portrayed themselves.

Of course I have no idea what a Sophomore is, so I probably didn't get your joke at all :D
At the risk of sinking so low as to explain a joke, I'm certain that piffle, one of my favorites among the board's wits, knows the difference between "sophist" and "sophomore," and was engaged in wordplay with the connotations of the latter word in American idiom.

Sophomore was originally university slang used at Cambridge, "based on 16th-century variants of the word sophism; in the spelling sophumer it is recorded in OED from 1653." Now obsolete in England, "by 1726 it had crossed the pond to Cambridge, Massachusetts, when it was used at Harvard, and to Yale by 1764 (where the spelling sophimore was originally preferred.)"

In the U.S. it now refers to second year students, equally appropriate for high school students or college students. The adjectival form "sophomoric" has a primary meaning of "pretentious and juvenile."

To my ears, piffle's pairing of the terms "sophistry" and "sophomore" suggests that our interlocutor does not even deserve whatever reputation still attaches to such famous teachers of rhetoric as Gorgias and Cratylus: a sophomore, not even a sophist.

Quotations are from a blog run by the Oxford Dictionaries.
Off Topic
With respect to your aspirsive comment several pages back, "grandiloquent" is not a fair term for well-known soldier's slang from the Civil War. :fingerwag: ;)



noblepa
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: I am man

#847

Post by noblepa » Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:59 am

RoadScholar wrote:It sounds like a comic exaggeration, but not that long ago in the West the explanation that "the fellow just needed killin'" was at least a viable defense against the charge of murder, and almost guaranteed to work if the dead guy was non-white.
It is still a viable defense, in some form and in some cases. Sefl-defense or to stop a violent crime from taking place.

I once remember F. Lee Bailey (long before the OJ case) being interviewed. He said that he would much rather defend a murderer than a car thief, because you can not argue in court that the car deserved to be stolen.

Its true that one can no longer claim "he just needed killin'", on general principles, but you can, with specific reasons. Actually, I don't think that the law ever really condoned killing in general principles or because someone was non-white. It is to our society's shame, however, that such things did happen and continue to happen, although I thnk we are getting better.

And, while I am not a proponent of jury-nullification, if the defendent can convince a jury that the victim was such a terrible person (serial rapist, child molester, etc.) he/she may be acquitted, even though there was no imminent danger or no crime about to be committed.

Of course, this sort of ties back to JSG's discussion of ability vs. right. Juries clearly have the ABILITY to acquit a clearly guilty murderer, but they may not have the RIGHT to do so.

Conversely, a jury has the ability to convict someone who is clearly innocent. It has happened. IANAL, but it is my understanding that one can not appeal a conviction on the grounds that "the jury got it wrong", unless you can provide evidence that was unavailable at the time of the trial, or show error by the trial judge.



noblepa
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: I am man

#848

Post by noblepa » Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:11 am

I think that the entire concept of "rights", is a human invention. In a truly feral society, there are no statutes, governments or police to protect one from others. It is simply a matter of self-preservation.

In the case of the bear attack, I am going to defend myself, if I can, to the best of my ability. I may lose, or I may get lucky and scare the bear away. There is no question of right or wrong. In nature, it is a matter of "eat or be eaten".

There are many cases in nature, of animals doing things that we would consider violations of "natural rights". Black widow spiders and preying mantises eat their mates. Do they have the "right" to do so? It really doesn't matter to either the one being eaten or the one doing the eating. No other black widow is going to step in and stop them. Doesn't the male black widow spider have a natural right to life? Doesn't the female violate that right by eating him?

A so-called "right" is something that I can do that no one can rightfully prevent me from doing. To enforce that right requires a society that agrees that I have that right. This may be as simple as peer pressure within the tribe or as complex as the US Constitution and justice system.



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6734
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: I am man

#849

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:17 pm

noblepa wrote:
RoadScholar wrote:It sounds like a comic exaggeration, but not that long ago in the West the explanation that "the fellow just needed killin'" was at least a viable defense against the charge of murder, and almost guaranteed to work if the dead guy was non-white.
It is still a viable defense, in some form and in some cases. Sefl-defense or to stop a violent crime from taking place.

I once remember F. Lee Bailey (long before the OJ case) being interviewed. He said that he would much rather defend a murderer than a car thief, because you can not argue in court that the car deserved to be stolen.

Its true that one can no longer claim "he just needed killin'", on general principles, but you can, with specific reasons. Actually, I don't think that the law ever really condoned killing in general principles or because someone was non-white. It is to our society's shame, however, that such things did happen and continue to happen, although I thnk we are getting better.

And, while I am not a proponent of jury-nullification, if the defendent can convince a jury that the victim was such a terrible person (serial rapist, child molester, etc.) he/she may be acquitted, even though there was no imminent danger or no crime about to be committed.

Of course, this sort of ties back to JSG's discussion of ability vs. right. Juries clearly have the ABILITY to acquit a clearly guilty murderer, but they may not have the RIGHT to do so.

Conversely, a jury has the ability to convict someone who is clearly innocent. It has happened. IANAL, but it is my understanding that one can not appeal a conviction on the grounds that "the jury got it wrong", unless you can provide evidence that was unavailable at the time of the trial, or show error by the trial judge.
While it's true that "the law" (as in the letter) never condoned such abuses, I was thinking more along the lines of places I've been (and heard witness of time and again) where you might hear the words "Around here, I am the law, son."

And I didn't parse the "He needed killing." You're right of course that sometimes it's just. What I had in mind was those times when such a killing was not for something the deceased provably did, but more for who everyone in town knew he was.

I think my briefer point was: "might makes right" hasn't gone away, and describes the bulk of human history.

Citing "Natural, God-Given Rights" only appeals to an even mightier "authority."


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: I am man

#850

Post by Piffle » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:38 pm

chancery wrote:At the risk of sinking so low as to explain a joke, I'm certain that piffle...
Luckily for me, Bon Chancery earned his coif with that explanation.

I also found his discussion instructive in that I did not know that the word sophomore is now obsolete across the pond.

Thanks.



Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”